Dear Editor,
It has become fashionable for people aligned to the major Opposition party or who are anti-PPP/C to explain every social situation through the prism of race of racial discrimination. There is a tendency to pluck an issue out of its historical context and then begin to ruminate on it. This is not the right way to analyse situations for salience. Rather, there should be a shift in focus on adopting a contextual approach to any matter. In addition, the use of emotive language with the implicit intention of trying to extract a particular decision, could hardly deserve any serious attention.
In a letter to the press on April 9, 2023, prominent Union Leader Mr Lincoln Lewis refers to the impasse in the appointment to substantive positions of the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary and the acting Chief Justice, as discrimination. “That these discriminatory acts continue is not a function of the Constitution but inability of political leaders to recognise that such matters are not about them and their egos, but the interest of workers and citizens to be protected at every level.” Would Mr Lewis have taken the same position regarding the failure of the PNCR Opposition Leaders to give their consent for the substantive appointment of Hon Carl Singh as Chancellor of the Judiciary and Hon Ian Chang as Chief Justice? To say now that “their appointments should be substantive and retroactive,” is an attempt at appeasement; it is like closing the gate when the horses have already left.
Why the silence when Hon Carl Singh and Hon Ian Chang were not confirmed as Chancellor of Judiciary and Chief Justice, respectively? PNCR Opposition Leader Hon David Granger stated publicly that he would not agree to the appointments of Hon Carl Singh as Chancellor of the Judiciary and to Hon Ian Chang as Chief Justice. Hon Ian Chang served 10 years in the acting capacity as Chief Justice, while Justice Carl Singh served 12 years as Acting Chancellor. There was no advocacy by Opposition forces on behalf of the acting Chancellor Justice Carl Singh to be confirmed during the David Granger regime.
When Hon Carl Singh demitted office, President David Granger favoured Justice Kenneth Benjamin of Belize and not Justice Yonette Cummings-Edward as the substantive Chancellor. The PPP/C Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo did not agree with that nomination and raised some concerns with President David Granger. Likewise, the Guyana Bar Association felt uneasy with Justice Benjamin’s nomination. Why wasn’t President Granger asked to explain his refusal to identify Justice Yonette Cummings-Edward as Chancellor of the Judiciary but chose instead Justice Kenneth Benjamin for that position?
There is an important interplay of dialectics here. To understand how this evolves and leads to a particular position, a brief probe into the relevant historical context is unavoidable. In 2001 the PPP/C Government implemented a menu of measures, as part of its efforts to enhance inclusive governance by shifting some power from the Executive onto the parliamentary Opposition. One such measure was the arrangement (formula) to appoint the Chancellor of the Judiciary and the Chief Justice. This formula allows the Leader of the Opposition to give his consent for the substantive appointment to both offices. Previously, this power of appointment was vested in the presidency.
When the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) was established, the incumbent Chancellor of the Judiciary of Guyana, Hon Justice Desiree Bernard demitted office in 2005 and was elevated as an Appellate Judge in the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) that was established in April 2005. Chief Justice Carl Singh was appointed Acting Chancellor in 2005. He served in that capacity until February 2017. In 2006 Hon Justice Ian Chang was appointed acting Chief Justice and served in that capacity until his retirement in 2016. Neither PNCR opposition Leader Hon Robert Corbin (2003-2012) nor Hon David Granger (2012-2015) agreed to confirm either Justice Ian Chang or Justice Carl Singh to the substantive positions of Chief Justice and Chancellor of the Judiciary, respectively.
Former President Bharrat Jagdeo had met with PNCR Opposition Leader Hon Robert Corbin on several occasions in the expectation of confirming Chief Justice Carl Singh as the substantive Chancellor of the Judiciary. Jagdeo also sought the substantive appointment of Justice Ian Chang as Chief Justice. Jagdeo failed to get agreement on both appointments.
When Hon Donald Ramotar became President in 2011, he met with the Leader of the Opposition Hon David Granger multiple times to seek agreement on the appointment of Hon Carl Singh as the substantive Chancellor of the Judiciary and Justice Ian Chang as the substantive Chief Justice. Hon David Granger refused to give his consent. What is perplexing too is that neither Hon Corbin nor Hon Granger offered any reason for their objections to the appointments of Justice Carl Singh as Chancellor and Justice Ian Chang as Chief Justice. Neither did they propose any alternative candidates for these positions.
If the Government and the parliamentary Opposition party cannot agree on the existing arrangement for the appointment of the Chief Justice and the Chancellor of the Judiciary, then the authorities should allow the people to resolve this matter through a referendum. Sovereignty resides in the people.
Sincerely,
Dr Tara Singh
